(Ahmad Ali Shah)
India’s response to conflicts and violent incidents within its territory particularly in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) has long been predictable: accuse Pakistan first, investigate later, and allow its media to construct a narrative of victimhood that drowns out facts. Yet, when Pakistan presents concrete evidence of India’s sponsorship of terrorism on Pakistani soil, New Delhi shifts into silence, denial, or strategic deflection. This contradictory behaviour has become the hallmark of India’s foreign policy a policy driven by optics, selective outrage, and calculated destabilisation. It is this very hypocrisy that continues to undermine regional peace, distort global perceptions, and embolden violent actors across South Asia.
The double standards become glaring when one compares India’s loud reactions to incidents in Kashmir with its muted response to Pakistan’s detailed disclosures of Indian involvement in terrorism. Whenever violence occurs in Indian territory or in IIOJK, India projects Pakistan as the perennial aggressor. Its media machinery quickly crafts an anti-Pakistan narrative, feeding domestic political ambitions and reinforcing a siege mentality among the Indian public. Yet, when Pakistan reveals evidence showing India’s financial, logistical, and operational support for terrorist groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), India avoids serious international scrutiny.
Pakistan has long documented Indian attempts to fuel insurgencies, destabilise border regions, and weaken Pakistan’s internal cohesion. The BLA, responsible for numerous attacks on security forces and civilians in Balochistan, has received foreign backing that Pakistan’s investigations have repeatedly traced to Indian intelligence operatives. Similarly, the TTP which has carried out devastating assaults including the 2014 Peshawar Army Public School massacre has benefitted from networks supported from across the border. In both 2020 and 2024, Pakistan submitted extensive dossiers to the United Nations containing confessions, intercepted communications, bank transfers, and operational details proving Indian involvement in terrorist activities inside Pakistan. India, however, adopted the strategy of strategic silence, knowing well that denial in the absence of pressure often succeeds in shielding it from accountability.
While India expects its allegations against Pakistan to be accepted without question, it dismisses Pakistan’s evidence-backed concerns as political rhetoric. This asymmetry forms the basis of New Delhi’s regional approach: amplify claims when politically beneficial, suppress responsibility when confronted with difficult truths.
This pattern resurfaced dramatically after the April 2025 attack in Pahalgam, IIOJK, in which 26 tourists were killed. Although the Resistance Front (TRF) openly claimed responsibility, India immediately blamed Pakistan and attempted to link the attack to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Pakistan, however, rejected the allegations, highlighting the suspicious timing and inconsistencies—elements often associated with past Indian false flag operations. The Defence Minister cautioned against drawing premature conclusions and stressed that the attack bore signs of being engineered to manufacture justification for aggression against Pakistan.
Rather than engaging through diplomacy or allowing an independent investigation, New Delhi escalated militarily. Despite DG ISPR Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif’s clear statement that India had “no evidence whatsoever” linking Pakistan to the Pahalgam attack or other alleged incidents inside India, the Indian government opted for force. It launched Operation Sindoor, a strategic strike that targeted multiple civilian-populated areas in Pakistan including Bahawalpur, Kotli, Muridke, Sialkot, Muzaffarabad, and Bagh. India claimed these were precision strikes on militant infrastructure and boasted of using domestically produced drones and missiles to showcase its evolving technological capacity. However, facts on the ground told a starkly different story: 31 civilians killed, 57 injured, and no evidence of militant casualties or camps destroyed.
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry condemned the attack as “unprovoked aggression,” and rightly so. Operation Sindoor exposed India’s increasing reliance on militarised propaganda creating the appearance of decisive action while inflicting suffering on innocent people. The assault highlighted a long-standing pattern: India uses allegations of terrorism to justify aggression, distract from domestic crises, and portray Pakistan as the aggressor. Such tactics dangerously undermine peace in a region where nuclear-armed neighbours cannot afford reckless adventurism.
India’s military adventurism did not occur in isolation. It fits a broader chain of events in which India has skillfully used episodes of violence to shift blame onto Pakistan while escalating tensions for political gain. The cycle is familiar. After the 2016 Uri attack, India claimed it conducted “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control, despite offering no verifiable proof. In 2019, following the Pulwama attack—which killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel India launched an airstrike deep into Pakistani territory at Balakot. Pakistan responded proportionately, demonstrating professional restraint while defending its sovereignty. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) shot down two Indian aircraft, captured Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman, provided him dignified treatment including the famously referenced “fantastic tea” and released him as a gesture of goodwill. India’s pattern is consistent: blame Pakistan first, confront later, confess never.
India’s strategic hypocrisy is not confined to its dealings with Pakistan; it extends to its foreign policy in Afghanistan. In October 2025, New Delhi hosted Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi—despite his UN sanctions designation—marking the first time India openly embraced a top Taliban official. This dramatic shift reflected India’s desire to cultivate influence in Afghanistan after years of failed attempts to establish ground presence. New Delhi presented the visit as humanitarian diplomacy, but Pakistan viewed it as a calculated move to use the Taliban as a pressure tool along the Durand Line. India’s covert support—whether in political cover, trade facilitation, or communication channels has emboldened elements within Afghanistan to adopt a harder stance against Pakistan’s border security concerns.
This proxy competition intensified further when two major attacks occurred in November 2025 a car bombing in Delhi on November 10 and a suicide attack on Islamabad’s court complex the following day, killing 12. Both countries traded allegations. Pakistan suggested possible Indian manipulation of Afghan Taliban-linked groups to destabilise Pakistan internally, while India accused Pakistan of trying to deflect from domestic challenges. The precarious situation prompted Pakistan to warn of the dangerous possibility of a “two-front war” scenario—one involving direct conflict with India in the east and increasing militant pressures emboldened by India’s silent support in the west.
Such tensions reveal a grim truth: India’s pattern of manufactured narratives, covert sponsorship of militancy, and periodic military adventurism is not about national security it is about regional dominance. India seeks to isolate Pakistan globally by framing it as the perpetual aggressor while quietly enabling violent actors that destabilise Pakistan internally. New Delhi’s strategy relies heavily on false flag operations, selective diplomacy, and weaponising media narratives to create confusion and international pressure.
While India’s behaviour grows more provocative, Pakistan consistently opts for diplomacy, transparency, and responsible statecraft. Pakistan has repeatedly invited international investigations, shared verifiable evidence with global institutions, and exercised restraint even in the face of direct provocations. Its responses are grounded in international law and the principle that regional peace is too fragile for reckless escalation.
India’s strategic hypocrisy demanding accountability while refusing to accept it, denouncing terrorism while fueling it, and framing narratives while suppressing realities serves only to inflame tensions in South Asia. Such behaviour is not just inconsistent; it is dangerous. It reinforces a cycle of mistrust, provokes military confrontations, and perpetuates instability in a region that cannot afford conflict.
If India truly desires peace, it must abandon the politics of manufactured narratives and aggressive posturing. It must acknowledge Pakistan’s documented concerns and accept transparent international scrutiny of its covert operations. Until then, India’s claims of fighting terrorism will remain overshadowed by its own support for insurgencies, its manipulation of militant factions, and its calculated attempts to destabilize Pakistan.
The path to stability in South Asia is clear: honesty, accountability, and dialogue not false flags, propaganda wars, and civilian-targeting strikes. Pakistan continues to champion this approach. The question is whether India is willing to abandon its strategic hypocrisy and embrace genuine peace.
